savechildren.info UDRP

[Mr. Deleted]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2005-1039.html

This is a wierd UDRP, that Safe The Children faught a charity in Rawalpindi, Pakistan over, and won, cause the Respondent is too busy saving children to respond?

B. Respondent

- Respondent lives in Pakistan and his charity operates in the state of Kashmir which was hit by the worst earthquake in Pakistan’s history. Most of Respondent’s staff was killed and Respondent’s office was destroyed.

- Respondent regrets to say that under the current situation, Respondent is too busy rescuing and rehabilitating children. Respondent is unable to follow this case and appeals that it be postponed.

[sasquatch]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2005-1039.html

This is a wierd UDRP, that Safe The Children faught a charity in Rawalpindi, Pakistan over, and won, cause the Respondent is too busy saving children to respond?

B. Respondent

It's ****ing ugly when you can trademark "saving children".

Some people make me puke.

[beanbaby]

i agree with this, this is so unfair.

[Sarcle]

Yeah, because we all know that the world is only big enough for one "children saving" foundation. Look at all the starving, lost, dying, broken home children there are in the world. Then ask if this original org is actually doing it's job. To me it looks like they are being to big of money whores to actually worry about fufilling their needs.

I don't see the problem here, a company was set up for the sole purpose of helping children during the recent earthquake, sounds and looks like it was actually doing that, and they got thier domain taken away. 100% BULLSH*T.

But a of couple people on this board might actually disagree and say that this person was just a cyber-squatter stealing an organizations name that looks like can't actually do it's job but just fight in court.

Well I know where my few hundred in charity will not go this next year. And that is a shame.

[fab]

Their site isn't even finished yet.

[Mr. Deleted]

from the decision:

The explanations given by the Respondent are most likely fabricated for the purposes of this proceeding. The Panel finds this is a violation of the bad faith registration and use provisions of the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). In the Panel’s view, the Respondent is out to defraud the public while using the Complainant’s SAVE THE CHILDREN trademark.

I can't see how he could even come to that conclusion? What was fabricated in there? The guy was just helping children, and needed money to do so... I see nothing wrong with helping children...

[Sarcle]

The only way they would be able to prove bad faith is if this person was not actually helping these children. Of which they did not prove.

[payperclick.biz]

omg.... that is just sad, no matter the domain if i found out the owner has a charity saving children in Pakistan, that is enough reason for me to stop the udrp, just goes to show the complainer is heartless twat, same goes for udrp, that's what happens when you judge everything with pure evidence and logic.

I hope Save The Children gets screwed with a udrp soon too. BTW i can't see how Save The Children and savechildren.info have anything to do with each other! they have their own domain savethechildren.org . I think the money them spent for the UDRP would have been better spent saving children in Pakistan. Someone should really flame them for that, i mean they are a charity!

[JuniperPark]

omg.... that is just sad, no matter the domain if i found out the owner has a charity saving children in Pakistan, that is enough reason for me to stop the udrp, just goes to show the complainer is heartless twat, same goes for udrp, that's what happens when you judge everything with pure evidence and logic.

I hope Save The Children gets screwed with a udrp soon too. BTW i can't see how Save The Children and savechildren.info have anything to do with each other! they have their own domain savethechildren.org . I think the money them spent for the UDRP would have been better spent saving children in Pakistan. Someone should really flame them for that, i mean they are a charity!

I agree, but unfortunately many of the "well known" charities are corrupt. You may recall that a lot of the United Way money ended up in the pockets of the wealthy exec running it. One of the directors of the Red Cross in San Diego was getting a salary + benefits of about $300,000/year. This was only brought to light when she used video of a the victims of a fairly small wildfire
that destroyed their home in TV commercials that brought in tons of money while that victim got a very small amount. That family was pissed off enough to dig into the Red Cross records, and sure enough, it was ugly so they took it to the news media.

[actnow]

I just checked. Save the Children has all of the variations in wording and tlds
but one.

They don't have one of the most valuable.

SaveChildren com goes to a ppc site. And, the company has owned it since 2001.

I guess they have a good lawyer.

[fab]

This case sounds very fishy:

SaveTheChildren <> SaveChildren
Name is generic
They run a valid organisation, not a ppc

Why should 1 organisation get exclusive rights over saving children.
I could understand them claiming a SaveUSChidren.Info domain.
Seems that this WIPO is rippo.